Half of the top 32 seeds were in his draw. Shut the f*** up. The top seeds were all beaten by these "non top 32" players.

Click to expand...

henman, arazi, gonzalez, novak, robredo, hrbaty, horna, schuettler, spadea, chela, massu, and pavel. those were the seeds on his side of the draw. not exactly a group u would pick to win wimbledon. henman and philopoussis are the only potential threats in the whole bottom section.

Given their prior perfomances here, Henman and Philippousis were threats to Roddick -- particularly Henman, who has a good record against Roddick.

But why is the supposed ease of Roddick's draw relevant? :?: It didn't impact Federer, whose draw may have looked tougher on paper, but turned out to be basically a cake-walk for him. It's not as if he's going to be exhausted going into the final. Neither guy is.

At the end of the day, the two best grasscourt players in the draw are left standing. Which is what almost everyone expected anyway.

I realize there's a sense of disappointment that Andy is a contender in these events. But it's a fact, and no amount of whining and complaining is going to change it. :wink:

I think that Roddick just has luck in getting easy draws, while Federer has the worst luck. In the French Open for example Roddick's quarter was loaded with Americans and only Fabrice Santoro and Chela as clay courters. Federer had Guga in the third round!

Now in Wimby, Roddick didn't have the caliber of opponents that Federer did. Federer had to face Karlovic, Hewitt, and Grosjean. Roddick's last three opponents were Pop, Shalken, and Ancic.

Federer played Hewitt and Grosjean in the QF and SF. Roddick played Schalken and then Ancic. The apparent ease with which Federer beat Hewitt and Grosjean isn't the point. The point is Hewitt and Grosjean are much better players than Schalken and Ancic.

Having a high rank/seed is only a privelage that you get. If you work hard and play well all year, you get an easier draw. That does not mean that you are going to win the event. It's like qualifying for pole position in a race. You get an advantage for being the best coming into the event.

Intesesting observations, if the draw does not matter, maybe the event should just seed by ranking. Then this point is mute.

Click to expand...

but if they dont place the seeds in the proper places in the draw it doesnt matter. federer played hewitt in the quarters, 1 vs 7. while roddick was scheduled to play schuettler, 2 vs 8. anyone who has ever ran a tournament knows the sums should be equal, that of 9 for the quarters, 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, and 4 vs 5. id say the seedings catered toward roddick. they also put the #3 seed into federers half so u get a 1 vs 3, 2 vs 4 semi.

hard to debate the evidence that the draw was easier for roddick. not just in player caliber but in the seeding alone.

It is not Roddick's fault that the seeds didn't come through his part of the draw to meet him. Obviously they weren't good enough to beat the "non-seeds" or "lower ranked" players. But when Andy played them, he beat them. Andy was good enough to get the job done while the other seeds couldn't.

And you can only play who's put in front of you.

As to 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7.....seedings have always EITHER put it 1 v. 7 OR 1 v. 8.....there was never a set pattern.

As to 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7.....seedings have always EITHER put it 1 v. 7 OR 1 v. 8.....there was never a set pattern.

Click to expand...

do simple math and look at the history of seeding. any fool knows the 1 is supposed to play the 8 and 2 vs 7. the #1 is supposed to get the benefit of the draw not the #2. its almost impossible to argue because its common sense. a fair draw says the numbers come out equal for all players, an unfair draw says they dont.

As to 1 v. 8, 2 v. 7.....seedings have always EITHER put it 1 v. 7 OR 1 v. 8.....there was never a set pattern.

Click to expand...

do simple math and look at the history of seeding. any fool knows the 1 is supposed to play the 8 and 2 vs 7. the #1 is supposed to get the benefit of the draw not the #2. its almost impossible to argue because its common sense. a fair draw says the numbers come out equal for all players, an unfair draw says they dont.

Click to expand...

I understand your point and I agree with you but it has been this way for awhile. Look at the grand slam seeding placements in the recent years. The Wimbledon draw this year wasn't made JUST to benefit "Rodneck".

As long as Roger remains No.1 and Andy remains No. 2 seed at Wimbledon, Tim Henman and Andy will be placed in the easier half. A lot of people (Lleyton, Moya, Grosjean, Safin, etc.) in the top half may very well have stopped Andy if the draw were reversed. The only legitimate one on the bottom half is Tim Henman (excluding black horses). Watch for next year's draw: same thing.

Federer played Hewitt and Grosjean in the QF and SF. Roddick played Schalken and then Ancic. The apparent ease with which Federer beat Hewitt and Grosjean isn't the point. The point is Hewitt and Grosjean are much better players than Schalken and Ancic.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the same Ancic who wiped the floor with Federer at Wimbledon a few years ago? Ahh, i must be mistaken. :roll:

Now everyone is bashing Roddick for the draw. HE HAS NO F'N CONTROL OVER HOW THE DRAW COMES OUT. He plays who he has to, that's it.

And to the troll who said that Popp and Dent aren't good players....THEY'RE AWESOME ON GRASS! Popp had made the Quarter's every year he played until this year against Roddick. Dent's game is taylor-made for grass. :roll:

A lot of people (Lleyton, Moya, Grosjean, Safin, etc.) in the top half may very well have stopped Andy if the draw were reversed.

Click to expand...

I disagree. We'll never know, but Andy would have been the fave in any of those match-ups.

Safin couldn't get past the first round, against a guy ranked No. 97.

This is the first time Moya has gotten past the second round of Wimbledon in about 7 tries, and Andy is 3-0 over him.

Andy beat Hewitt and Grosjean at Queen's in two sets a couple weeks ago (he beat Grosjean last year in two sets as well).

Don't know who "etc." is, but imo, the biggest threat to Andy other than Roger was Henman. Andy doesn't have a great record against Tim, and he would have had to play all of Britain as well as Tim. He got a bit lucky that Tim didn't advance, although to be honest, I saw several of Tim's matches, and he was looking less than sharp the whole fortnight. Talk about pressure!